The world needs nuclear to combat global warming. Many countries need it to reduce their dependence on expensive and insecure supplies of oil.
Do you really think we can't build nuclear plants better than Chernobyl? The Soviets spent their money on arms. Nuclear power plants were built cheaply.
We have the technology to build safe nuclear power plants, secure from terrorist attacks. We can also dispose of the waste.
It will take hard work and money. And we need to do it.
EDIT We also need to work on solar and wind. But we can't get those to make enough power at a reasonable cost for now. One day maybe they can replace nuclear. Right now they can just help.
2007-03-29 05:34:56
·
answer #1
·
answered by Bob 7
·
3⤊
1⤋
The trouble with Russian reactors, particularly the Chernobyl one, is that safety is somewhat dubious. The reactor there was of a type that had been banned in Britian since the 60's. With the stringent regulations that Britain, France and America have, then they can be considered safe. Nuclear power has relatively little waste, despite the various scare stories, and is reasonably cheap to produce. Whilst wind, solar and hydro electric power can supply some of our energy needs, they are not suited as full scale replacements for the coal and oil fired stations due to the irregularity of supply (in the case of wind) and the lack of efficiency with solar power. Therefore nuclear power is currently the best way forwards.
2007-03-29 12:35:40
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
OK let´s STOP ARGUMENTATION WITHOUT FIGURES... they are only opinions...
Fact: A new nuclear reactor from the 3rd generation costs 2.5 billion $
Fact: If companies have to take care themselves of the nuclear wastes, they don´t invest in nuclear anymore since the price connected to such a liability is too high
Debated: scientists nevertheless think they can solve the problem for the wastes in about 10 years
Fact: The 4th generation of nuclear power plants will only be ready in 30 years. Nevertheless, their inherent safety will be much higher and their wastes minimal
Fact: Nuclear has an efficiency of 33% due to a limited pressure and temperature related to safety for the fuel rods
Fact: We could developp helium turbine to reach an effciciency of over 50%.
Possibility: HTR (High Temperature Reactors) are far from beeing ready to operate. They could nevertheless provide a temperature of 900°C which would be enough to produce fuels for transportation (hydrogen or hydrocarbs) through depolymerisation of any bio-waste.
Fact: The uranium would be enough to supply the present amount of nuclear power for 70 more years at still reasonable prices. If everybody were to switch to nuclear, the fuel price would rocket.
Fact: Nuclear Fusion would also pollute a lot since it would produce not only Helium (ideally) but other isotopes which would be radioactive for thousands of year (atomic period)
Fact: A COAL power plants exhausts AS MUCH RADIOACTIVE SUBSTANCES IN THE ATMOSPHERE AS A NUCLEAR POWER PLANT... yes since there is a minimal fraction in coal... but burned in such a hughe quantity that radium is set free for example !
Fact: You can invest the 2.5 billion of a Nuclear Power Plant in Styrofoam for heat insulation and save more energy for the same price than the nuclear power plant would have burnt !
Fact: You can invest the 2.5 billion also in research for renewables... the NREL has a budget of 0.2 billion per year... With only 1 NPP you can alnmost double the research for renewables during 10 years... with much higher outcomes.
Fact: Nuclear Power provides cheap electricity but only for the base load... the peak load has to be covered by other more adjustable sources of power.
Fact: the nuclear technology which provides 75% of the electricity in France is a handicap for the technological advancement... Germany invests 20 times their budget in R&D for renewables... having a low carbon intensity lead them to no efforts toward innovation and energy conservation.
2007-03-29 16:25:24
·
answer #3
·
answered by NLBNLB 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
Nuclear power does not just mean reactors like the one that blew up in Chernobyl. There are WAY better designs that can, and are, safely producing electricity. And nuclear power could mean FUSION power too, which, if we can ever figure out how to make it work, could produce power without any radioactive waste of explosion danger at all. In some designs, all radiation disappears as soon as the reactor is shut down. In those designs, even the fuel is not radioactive. Too bad for us we cannot make them work. But we are still trying! Go to www.google.com and type "google bussard" in the search window and view the 90 minute video in the top link. Or just click on the source below.
2007-03-29 15:10:24
·
answer #4
·
answered by campbelp2002 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
It's really amazing, isn't it? We have more than enough wind reserves and areas with exploitable solar power to supply humanity with inexhaustible, clean power forever, with no change in our standard of living, and yet we decide to do the suicide run with nuclear.
The answer is that in the short run the economics favor nuclear. In the long run nuclear is a bad deal in terms of both economics and ecological disaster. The nuclear industry is enabled by governments that pick up the tab for waste disposal/sequestration, as well as being the "insurance" underwriter for catastrophic damage. So, to the utility, it is a bonanza: all the profit and none of the risk. To the consumer, it seems like a good deal, though part of the reason for his/her taxes is the nuclear plant, but they're just not aware of it.
The existence of of commercial nuclear power is a monument to the ability of humans to rationalize even the most ridiculous of irrational behavior.
Windpower is a mature, economically competitive (4 cents/kWhr vs. 3 cents/kWhr for coal fired), ecologically low-impact solution, and yet we continue down our path of madness.
2007-03-29 12:40:09
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I was of the same opinion until about a year ago when scientists realised they had underestimated the effect of greenhouse gas emissions and how urgent it is to cut them down (due to "global dimming").
Much as I dislike the idea of nuclear fission power, it has to play its part as an alternative to fossil fuels. In the long run though, and in addition to being dangerous - nuclear fission will become very impractical and uneconomic as Uranium becomes increasingly scarce. So it can only really be exploited in the relatively short term.
Nuclear fusion, on the other hand is the best long term solution to our energy needs in my opinion. Cheap energy whose only waist products are clean water and helium . If only we could find a stable form of fusion to base a reactor on. In my opinion fusion research is what governments should be funding as a priority. That's the real way for the future.
2007-03-29 12:40:13
·
answer #6
·
answered by Spacephantom 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Chernobyl is only one incident by a group of clumsy low tech people. Not all Nuclear Power Plants are poorly run.
Nuclear power is still a cheap, safe, and clean source of energy. The next step will be 'Tokomat' Nuclear fusion plasma reactors that will not produce nuclear waste and will run virtually forever.
Nuclear power needs to be further considered as yet another means of removing U.S. dependence on fossil fuels.
2007-03-29 15:22:49
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
1⤋
Beats me why they choose this method other than it is a solution aalthough a dirty one.
With sufficient money and developement you could have hydrogen power plants working offshore, aswell as the offshore windfarms, offshore water turbines, offshore wave turbines, Tidal flow turbines, solar energy farms. Obviously these are answers for us in the UK and not necessarily suitable for land locked countrys but we could produce the technology and export the power. It would employ a lot of people in the technical and manufacturing business. A lot better to spend your money here on something for the future than on a few Trident submarines and missiles that will never be used.
2007-03-29 12:28:57
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Nuclear fusion (the opposit of fission, with almost no radioactivity problems) could be a solution but still we can't use it to produce energy for many reasons. The problem is that the oil age will end near the half of this century and we could be forced to use fission with all it's problems because we cannot replace it with natural sources of energy if not in a small part
2007-03-29 12:31:36
·
answer #9
·
answered by MadScientist 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
Keep in mind that the Russians didn't pay much attention to safety protocols, they just wanted a cheap reactor that would work, hence they didn't add all the nice alarms and additional safe guards that most Western powers do. As a result, it cost them.
2007-03-29 15:26:44
·
answer #10
·
answered by Wee Bit Naughty 3
·
1⤊
0⤋